Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

simpleflying.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#201

Post by ouid »

SllX wrote: post #178
ouid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an unfair requirement that goods produced in your state be made with fairly compensated labor, if there is no similar requirement on goods consumed in your state.

So drop the compensation minimums or put up a political tariff until the compensation minimums in the counter-party-country match yours (if that’s how it ends). Those are your two outs. Tariffs raise revenue and serve political ends, which can be protectionist in nature or serve some other purpose. That’s fine, as long as we recognize that we’re using them for political ends. The fairest trade of them all is going to…

>The fairest trade of them all is going to be between two people that can make an exchange without state interference and without feeling like the other person got more than they did, and tariffs interfere with that type of exchange.

Why does your definition of fairness include a clause about state interference? I don't think you can argue in good faith about whether or not governments can act to increase fairness if your definition of fairness excludes government action.

Trade will occur at any price between the value to the consumer and the cost to the producer. In a perfectly competitive market, the agreed upon price approaches the cost to the producer, and it will necessarily be the case that the consumer got more from it. Is that fair?

This is going to sound condescending, and I'm sorry about that, but you should consider adopting a principled set of economic beliefs rather than one based exclusively on your politics.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#202

Post by rad_gruchalski »

dingaling wrote: post #184
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus Americas, Inc. headquarters is located in Herndon, Virginia. The parts are 100% sold.

Airbus America should switch to paying a substantial 'licensing fee' to Airbus SaS, in return for which they can use the trademark and also receive compatible parts for $1 each...

Those would be most likely different SKUs. The parts have to be still imported and money would have to change hands.

If I raise you an invoice and you raise me an invoice, we can’t pay them by simply offsetting them.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#203

Post by hyperman1 »

hyperman1 wrote: post #134
cmehdy wrote: post #8

"Among the goods to see an impact from the widened net of additional duty are European made wines, which will attract a 25% duty, and French and German-made aircraft parts, attracting a 15% tax." As a French person, I can't help but feel like there's some sort of personal attack happening there. Wine and airplanes? Hey, I think you guys forgot to tax cheese and sarcasm while you're at it! Let's hope that a new US adm…

Interesting that it happens with France and wine. Not so long ago France decided to raise VAT on (Belgian imported) beer but not on (France fabricated) wine. Of course that had absolutely nothing to do with protectionism.

EDIT: Sorry, everybody, I am indeed completely wrong here.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#204

Post by agumonkey »

klmadfejno wrote: post #81
cmehdy wrote: post #8

"Among the goods to see an impact from the widened net of additional duty are European made wines, which will attract a 25% duty, and French and German-made aircraft parts, attracting a 15% tax." As a French person, I can't help but feel like there's some sort of personal attack happening there. Wine and airplanes? Hey, I think you guys forgot to tax cheese and sarcasm while you're at it! Let's hope that a new US adm…

As an American, sarcasm doesn't register as something associated with the French to me. Something along the lines of snobbish perhaps. edit: not condoning either take...

because you really think I'm rich ?

(this is meta comment, don't be offended)

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#205

Post by klmadfejno »

agumonkey wrote: post #204
klmadfejno wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, sarcasm doesn't register as something associated with the French to me. Something along the lines of snobbish perhaps. edit: not condoning either take...

because you really think I'm rich ? (this is meta comment, don't be offended)

I don't really understand this. But no, not rich snobbish. Just francophone snobbish.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#206

Post by ouid »

threatofrain wrote: post #128
ouid wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about no tariffs beig the fairest model. One reasonable thing to impose tariffs on is products made with slave labor, or labor paid at less than the minimum wage in your own country. The benefits are twofold, disincentivizing slave labor in other countries, and incentivizing local supply.

But this is more of an issue of human rights than trade parity between nations. No tariff is the simplest ground case for discussing different parities.

Any artificial restrictions on trade that we impose domestically, like minimum wage, or occupational health and safety requirements, are meaningless if we have no way of placing those restrictions elsewhere. I would argue exactly the opposite of what you have said, that tariffs are the natural way of expressing these restrictions internationally.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#207

Post by LockAndLol »

If that's the price of reigning in US tech giants, so be it. Make planes and flight more expensive, in fact, please tax flights heavily and introduce a yearly limit. Then, use that money to expand the train network and promote it for long distance travel.

Maybe something good will actually come out of this instead of dumb posturing.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#208

Post by ericd »

missedthecue wrote: post #104
ericd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you maintain wage and standard of living differentials with the rest of the world when transportation is as cheap as it currently is without a productivity gap, tariffs, or a carbon tax (increasing transportation cost) to make local manufacturing more attractive? Besides, there are big strategic reasons to maintain a strong domestic aerospace industry, even if it increases costs in the short run.

Like Adam Smith pointed out, the ideal set-up is to maximize imports and minimize exports. This will make your nation richer over the long run.

If you do that, don’t you have to essentially export money? Which can then be used by your counterparties to buy up your nation’s productive assets, and diminish the effective savings of your populace via asset inflation?

Also, aggregate wealth of a nation isn’t the only thing we should be targeting. You can increase the overall wealth while simultaneously demolishing the wealth of the large portion of your populace involved in domestic manufacturing.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#209

Post by SllX »

ouid wrote: post #201
SllX wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So drop the compensation minimums or put up a political tariff until the compensation minimums in the counter-party-country match yours (if that’s how it ends). Those are your two outs. Tariffs raise revenue and serve political ends, which can be protectionist in nature or serve some other purpose. That’s fine, as long as we recognize that we’re using them for political ends. The fairest trade of them all is going to…

>The fairest trade of them all is going to be between two people that can make an exchange without state interference and without feeling like the other person got more than they did, and tariffs interfere with that type of exchange. Why does your definition of fairness include a clause about state interference? I don't think you can argue in good faith about whether or not governments can act to increase fairness if…

Trade won’t occur if the costs incurred from government or State action increase the price to a level I am unwilling to pay, or else get me to reconsider a producer or service provider that doesn’t incur these additional costs. State interference isn’t a non-factor you can dismiss out of hand, honestly it probably is present in most transactions, but tariffs introduce an additional cost that specifically targets foreign producers and providers.

> This is going to sound condescending, and I'm sorry about that, but you should consider adopting a principled set of economic beliefs rather than one based exclusively on your politics.

I appreciate the consideration and that is good advice. If I had more time I would go back and re-read what I said to see if there’s anywhere my politics and economics appear to be blending together because I do actually try to keep those separate.

Primarily what I’m arguing here, or intending to be arguing are terms from a mostly neutral perspective, it’s still my perspective, so not entirely neutral.

With all due respect I enjoy reading discussions where people are agreed upon on what they are discussing, and tariffs are one of those discussions where words like “fair” get thrown around in several different directions, and inherently they are not fair and not intended to be fair. They serve a purpose, a revenue generating political purpose, maybe even several political purposes, and when words like “fair” get thrown around in such a manner, it really ruins the discussion because it’s not a discussion: it’s a tactical game of obfuscation played by whoever influenced the participants views most strongly.

So let me quote myself from a different comment chain. Perhaps you will still perceive my economics and politics to continue bleeding together; I think any considerations of economic policy are going to have some level of politics in then considering what is being discussed is a form of policy, but I haven’t put forward any explicit policies today.

> To be clear, I’m not anti-tariff. My priorities might be different, and all other things being equal I prefer no tariffs to tariffs by default, but let’s not pretend they’re intended to make trade fairer. They’re revenue first, retribution second (these last two may have flipped in the 20th century, but that’s a separate argument to have), and all other effects are tertiary.

Re: Airbus hit as new US tariffs come into force

#210

Post by alkonaut »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #169
alkonaut wrote: post #112

How are goods valued when it’s transferred across borders within the same organization? Parts from France to be assembled in Alabama aren’t necessarily “sold” so don’t need a value. How are tariffs calculated then?

Airbus Americas, Inc. headquarters is located in Herndon, Virginia. The parts are 100% sold.

Is that the case for all assembly taking place abroad? i.e. is that a requirement for being able to do the export/import, that the importer is a US company? Even so, what forces them to charge for it at all? If Airbus says a plane hull is $10 who challenges that?
Post reply on HN